SUPERIOR MRI SERVICES, INC., and SUPERIOR MRI SERVICES, INC. as Successor-in-Interest of P & L CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiffs,
ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., formerly ALLIANCE IMAGING, INC., and D/B/A ALLIANCE IMAGING and ALLIANCE IMAGING, INC., and JOHN DOES DEFENDANTS I THROUGH X, Defendants.
SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.
Defendant Alliance Healthcare Services (Alliance) seeks dismissal of this case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In particular, Alliance asserts that Superior MRI Services, Inc., (Superior) lacks standing to assert any allegations as it is not a successor-in-interest to P&L Contracting. Because Superior MRI Services, Inc. was not in existence at the time P&L Contracting dissolved, the contracts at issue could not have been legally assigned to Superior. Therefore, Superior MRI Services has no standing to pursue claims on behalf of P&L Contracting. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. For the reasons listed below, the Motion to Dismiss  is GRANTED.
Factual and Procedural Background
P&L Contracting, Inc. was created in October of 2006 and offered mobile MRI Imaging Services to Mississippi hospitals as approved by the Mississippi Department of Health. While operational, P&L executed contracts with several hospitals, including Yalobusha General Hospital, King's Daughter Hospital, Sharkey-Issaquena Community Hospital, South Sunflower County Hospital, North Sunflower County Hospital, Tri-Lakes Hospital, Stone County Hospital, and Tallahatchie General Hospital. P&L entered bankruptcy in January of 2012, and formally dissolved on November 15, 2012. In its bankruptcy filings, P&L claims it assigned its outstanding MRI Service Agreements to Superior MRI Services as of October 1, 2011. According to the Mississippi Secretary of State records, however, Superior MRI Services, Inc., was not incorporated until November 28, 2011.
The Complaint filed by Superior alleges that Alliance acquired an unfair advantage in placing mobile scanners as fixed sites and in not complying with the Mississippi Certificate of Need laws. Moreover, Superior claims that Alliance tortiously interfered with its business relations by violating the Mississippi State Board of Health rules and regulations with regards to Certificates of Need, tortiously interfered with contracts, and violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. Plaintiff additionally seeks injunctive relief due to Alliance's alleged violations of Board of Health regulations.
Alliance contends the Complaint must be dismissed as there is no individual right of action provided by the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Mississippi Certificate of Need laws; Superior lacks standing to assert tortious interference claims on behalf of P&L Contracting; and no injunctive or equitable relief is available.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and makes reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The complaint must contain "more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation, " but need not have "detailed factual allegations." Id., 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The plaintiff's claims must also be plausible on their face, which means there is "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id., 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation omitted). The Court need not accept as true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Id., 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation omitted).
Discussion and Analysis
Alliance contends that Superior MRI Services, Inc., has no standing to assert the tortious interference claims on behalf of P&L Contracting. The three requirements of Article III standing are familiar: the plaintiffs must allege an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and is likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Nat'l Solid Waste Mgmt. Ass'n v. Pine Belt Reg'l Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth. , 389 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2004); Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp. , 242 F.3d 539, 560 (5th Cir. 2001).
This Plaintiff satisfies those requirements. Superior alleges it has lost business due to Alliance's supposed disregard of the Mississippi Certificate of Need laws, and an award of damages could remedy that loss. Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc. , 634 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2011). However, even where Article III standing requirements are satisfied, prudential considerations require that a party "generally must assert [its] own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest [its] claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties." Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). The goal of the prudential standing requirements is to "determine whether the plaintiff is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.'" Procter & Gamble , 242 F.3d at 560 (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist. , 475 U.S. 534, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1334 n.8, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986)). "These judicially created limits concern whether a plaintiff's grievance arguably falls within the zone of interests protected by the statutory provision invoked in the suit, whether the complaint raises abstract questions or a generalized grievance more properly addressed by the legislative branch, and whether the plaintiff is asserting his or her own legal rights and interests rather than the legal rights and interests of third parties." Procter & Gamble , 242 F.3d at 560. Unlike a dismissal for lack of constitutional standing, which should be granted under Rule 12(b)(1), a dismissal for lack of prudential or statutory standing is properly granted under Rule 12(b)(6). See Blanchard 1986, Ltd. v. Park Plantation, LLC , 553 F.3d 405, 409 (5th Cir. 2008).
Alliance contends that because there was no valid assignment of rights in the applicable contracts from P&L to Superior MRI and there was no valid merger, Superior MRI has no standing to contest any alleged interference with those contracts.
P&L Contracting was created in October of 2006, and according to the Mississippi Secretary of State records, was dissolved on November 15, 2012. A bankruptcy action filed on P&L Contracting's behalf lists its MRI Service Agreements as assigned to Superior MRI Services on October 1, 2011. Superior MRI Services, however, was not in existence on October 1, 2011. Indeed, that entity was created pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation on November 28, 2011. See Miss. Code Ann. § 79-4-2.03 (providing that "[u]nless a delayed effective date is specified, the corporate existence begins when the articles of incorporation are filed."). No other evidence of assignment has been produced or asserted by Superior MRI. Indeed, the Complaint states only that Superior MRI is a "successor in interest" without providing further explanation.
Superior does, however, contend in response to the Motion to Dismiss that P&L Contracting and Superior MRI were merged, and that merger was recognized by the Department of Health. However, no Plan of Merger or Articles of Merger have been filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State evidencing such action. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 79-4-11.02, 11.06 (requiring a plan of merger and articles of merger once completed to be filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State). Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to put forth case law or other authority that the Department of Health's acknowledgment that a merger was ongoing is conclusive as to their legal status. Accordingly, the Court finds no evidence in the public record for the conclusion that Superior MRI has prudential standing to enforce the rights of P&L ...